To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

MPC_Hopkin, W. Francis

Are We Hiring the Right Students? Exploring personality traits and job performance among admission ambassadors

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Although my name appears alone on the title page of this thesis, many people have
helped along the way. Were it not for their support, expertise, and encouragement I could not
have completed this thesis or the graduate degree. I dedicate this page to thank those who have
helped me along the pathway to attaining this important goal.
I would like to thank the faculty of the Master of Professional Communication at Weber
State University for providing challenging coursework and teaching me how to critically
evaluate new concepts and perspectives. I sincerely enjoyed my experience with each professor
and will fondly remember the time spent in their courses.
My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Sheree Josephson in her role initially as director of
the MPC program, and later as my committee chair. Her passion for research helped plant within
me a deep-seeded curiosity in using quantitative data to answer the questions that intrigue me.
Her patience and persistence have been invaluable resources in helping me complete this thesis.
Had it not been for the empowering encouragement from Dr. Bruce Bowen, associate
provost for enrollment services at WSU, this endeavor would have been delayed even longer
than it was. I would like to thank him for helping me recognize time would pass regardless of my
progression towards a graduate degree. He was a primary motivator to embark on this journey.
In addition, I want to thank Scott Teichert, director of admissions at WSU, for taking on a
variety of roles throughout the completion of this degree. He provided critical insight as a
committee member for this thesis. He also has been a confidant, mentor, guide, teacher, boss,
and a great coach both professionally and during my time in the MPC program. But most of all,
I’d like to thank him for his friendship.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, McKenzie Hopkin. The
past two and half years have been filled with many exciting changes in our lives; a new job,
moving multiple times, the birth of our first child, and buying our first home. The time
commitment for the MPC program has been a weight she has had to carry alongside me. She has
been my greatest supporter the entire way and without her willingness to bear so many burdens, I
would not have been able to complete this degree. I thank her for her practical and emotional
support.
Running head: AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 1
Are We Hiring the Right Students?
Exploring personality traits and job performance among admissions ambassadors
W. Francis Hopkin
Weber State University
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 2
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted to examine the frequency of personality types among admissions
ambassadors in Utah. The study examined the relationship between personality and overall job
performance ratings. One hundred thirty-two participants from five colleges and universities in
Utah were surveyed to determine their personality type. The personality types were identified
using the Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test. The four types of personalities used in
this test are artisans, guardians, idealists, and rationals. The same participants were then rated by
their supervisors based on their performance as admissions ambassadors. Individual interviews
were conducted with the ambassador supervisors from each of the schools in order to determine
what categories should be used to measure job performance of the participants. These interviews
were also used to define an appropriate performance rating scale. The frequencies of personality
types revealed a significant difference in the types of personalities among the participants. There
was also significance found in the relationship between the different personality types and
performance ratings. It was discovered that the individuals conducting the performance
evaluations at certain schools gave significantly higher ratings in comparison to other
individuals.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 3
Literature Review
An extremely disappointed, and maybe even angry, admissions ambassador hung his
head and left his supervisor’s office. The advisor couldn’t help but ask himself, “How did this
happen?” It had only one been one year since that particular student had captivated everyone
during his interview to become an admissions ambassador. He had impressed committee
members so much that they unanimously elected to hire him. This was unheard of. Out of the
nine other applicants that day, none of them passed through the process with such ease.
Despite his positive first impression, this particular ambassador seemed to struggle in the
program from the beginning. Whether it was his lack of attention to detail or the inability to stay
focused, it seemed he just didn’t have the personality traits typically seen in high-performing
ambassadors. His inability to meet the expectations of the organization led to the uncomfortable
discussion in his supervisor’s office. Following his termination, the supervisor continued to
wonder how he could have been so wrong about someone everyone was so excited to hire. What
could they have done to identify potential warning signs that may have existed in this candidate?
This research study will examine the relationship between the personality traits and job
performance of student recruiters in an attempt to identify tools that can be used to ensure the
selection of the best possible candidates for this critical position.
Importance of student recruiters
Student recruiters, often called admission ambassadors, are undergraduate students on
college campuses who provide prospective students and their families with a current students’
perspective of life on campus. Ambassadors help answer challenging questions while working to
ease the fears of worried parents and hesitant students (Fippinger, 2009). Different institutions
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 4
utilize these ambassadors in a variety of ways. But no matter how they are used, the principal
purpose ambassadors fulfill is to provide assistance for prospective students during the college
decision process.
While many factors affect the college choice process, as early as 1981 research indicated
that current college students can be a major influencing factor of college choice for prospective
students (Chapman, 1981). As teenagers progress toward adulthood, they increasingly look to
their peers for advice, acceptance, and validation. The decision of what college to attend is being
made at a tumultuous time in the life of the student. Thus, this transitional decision can be
greatly facilitated by the assistance of capable peers. Abundant research concludes that during
this time in an adolescent’s life, teenagers tend to trust the opinion of their peers as much as
anyone (Conner, 1994; Dupre, Miller, Gold, & Rospenda, 1995).
Recognizing the impact peers have on college choice, recruitment professionals rely
heavily on the perception current students can offer prospective students during the recruitment
process. Colleges want to be viewed as having a friendly, welcoming atmosphere. By using
student ambassadors to give campus tours, appear in promotional materials, and act as peer
mentors, colleges can positively affect the experience prospective students have while
researching a school. Prospective students depend upon their interaction with ambassadors as a
way of validating everything they have read or heard about an institution (Sevier, 2000). Two
marketing professionals, Sevier and Kappler (1996) recognize this phenomenon and point out
that students desperately want to know how friendly the campus is and if they will fit in and be
accepted. Three strategies – the campus visit, the type of photographs used in the recruiting
funnel, and how the student is generally treated – are primary avenues through which
friendliness must be projected (Sevier & Kappler, 1996).
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 5
It has become a common practice within higher education to hire student leaders to give
campus tours, visit local high schools, attend recruitment fairs, and act as orientation group
leaders, all in an attempt to create a friendly, accepting environment associated with their
institutions. These student recruiters must enjoy meeting new people, developing relationships,
and extolling the virtues of their school (Fippinger, 2009). In the competitive world of college
recruiting, enrollment goals hinge on the institution’s ability to select the best student recruiters
and leaders to act as ambassadors and representatives of the college.
Job performance and personality
Because these student ambassadors can have such an influential impact on how the
college is perceived, it is essential the process used to hire these students is sound and attracts the
right type of applicant.
Hiring processes in general have traditionally placed great value in a job interview or a
professional resume in order to select candidates. Interviews have been an assessment tool in
attempting to identify an applicant’s cognitive ability, job knowledge, social skills, and even
aspects of their personality (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Resumes are routinely used by
organizations because of their perceived effectiveness and low cost in evaluating the alignment
between the requirements of the job and the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics
of job applicants (Dipboye & Jackson, 1999).
Ironically, past research contradicts this practice by showing that those conducting these
interviews tend to exaggerate their own ability to predict future job performance based on a
singular interview (Myers, 2007). Research also suggests that employment recruiters often look
beyond the objective data presented in resumes to make inferences about subjective information
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 6
such as personality characteristics (Wright & Domagalski, 2011). Additional research found that
many personality characteristics were not reliably discernible and did not demonstrate validity
when compared with actual personality scores for a sample of graduating college students (Cole
et al., 2009).
As a result, many organizations have explored alternative methods to incorporate in the
hiring process. One approach has been to examine personality traits as predictors of job
performance.
Identifying personality traits during the hiring process is not a new concept. The Institute
of Personality and Social Research (IPSR) at the University of California-Berkeley is one of the
leaders in this field. As early as 1949, IPSR began conducting research on how well personality
could predict job performance (IPSR, 2006). It specifically attempted to determine job
performance in military settings. It looked at such things as what personalities would make good
behind-the-lines secret agents during World War II (Caudron, 1997). It was found that military
personnel with similar personalities tended to be attracted to the same jobs (Weinrach &
Srebalus, 1990).
Although the practice of identifying personality traits during the hiring process began in
the mid-1900s, it has commonly been met with great skepticism. In 1965, researchers believed it
was impossible to conduct a review of the criterion-related validity of personality due to the lack
of available studies in the literature (Guion & Gottier, 1965). Since that time, ample research has
been conducted to establish the credibility of the practice. Researchers have been particularly
interested in the use of personality assessment being implemented during the hiring process, and
research studies were designed to examine the role of personality within personnel selection
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). Thanks to studies such as these, the initial skepticism surrounding the
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 7
role of personality in the selection process has been converted into a confidence that it can be an
invaluable tool to aid in the selection process (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Additionally, Tews,
Stafford and Tracey (2011) found that while general mental ability was a very strong predictor of
employee performance, it still isn’t as powerful of a forecaster as personality.
Personality Theories
Many tools and techniques exist to aid a selection committee in the hiring process.
Personality-based assessments are becoming more popular in determining the best candidate for
the position. Hiring professionals have discovered that no matter how skilled and competent the
candidate is, it’s the less-obvious personality traits that allow employees to grow and progress
within an organization (Caudron, 1997). These traits include, but are not limited to, how they
communicate with co-workers, how they handle conflict, or how they manage their time.
The emergence of these tools and techniques has relied on the evolution of different
personality theories. Hogan and Shelton’s socioanalytic perspective on performance theory
(Hogan & Shelton, 1998) has been one of the leading theories. Hogan and Shelton contend that
personality factors, specifically social skills, allow people to more successfully accomplish their
occupational goals (1998). In addition, Tett and Burnett (2003) offer a theory of "trait activation"
to explain how any given trait comes to be related to job performance. Trait activation theory
proposes that five individual situational features are applicable to trait expression (job demands,
distracters, constraints, releasers, and facilitators), operating at task, social, and organizational
levels (Tett & Burnett, 2003). While trait activation theory is complex, it provides a framework
that offers a promising foundation for improving personality test validity in work settings (Tett &
Christiansen, 2007). One of the most widely accepted models of personality traits is the Five
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 8
Factor Model of Personality (Wu & Stemler, 2008). This model is commonly referred to as the
“Big Five Model” (Wu & Stemler, 2008). This model emerged as a product of decades of
research in the field of personality theory. As a result, fairly broad agreements regarding the
structural organization of traits in terms of five domains were developed: agreeableness,
openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability (Goldberg,
1990). One of the personality traits that has received considerable attention is conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness is characterized by behavioral attributes such as dependability, persistence,
and hard work (Wright & Domagalski, 2011). It has been found to correlate with job proficiency
across a wide variety of occupational groups including professionals, managers, and semiskilled
jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Moy & Lam, 2004).
Another common theme among many personality theories is that of leadership in relation
to personality (Bass, 1990; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan,1994). For quite some time, psychologists
have recognized that by combining the study of cognitive ability and personality, they can
predict job effectiveness reasonably well (Hogan & Holland, 2003), especially in managerial
jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
A review of the literature showing a strong relationship between personality and general
job performance is abundant and accessible. However, research related to personality and job
effectiveness in college-age students is less plentiful. A few studies have shown that the success
of Resident Assistants (RAs) can be linked to certain personality traits (Wu & Stemler, 2008).
RAs who are social, warm, friendly, and extraverted were identified as more effective (Dickson
& Thayer, 1983). Likewise, personality traits of positive affect and extraversion were positively
associated with job performance (Deluga & Masson, 2000). But little research has been done to
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 9
look at the more specific nature of the relationship between personality traits in admissions
ambassadors and performance ratings.
If a strong relationship can be found between successful admissions ambassadors and
certain personality types, college recruiting professionals can improve their ability to ensure the
selection of the best possible candidates for this critical position. By selecting the best possible
candidates, they will then be able to more effectively portray a friendly, accepting atmosphere
that prospective students are hoping to find during the college selection process.
The purpose of this study is to begin looking at relationships between personality and
performance ratings of student recruiters and leaders. The project will answer the following
research questions:
RQ1 What personality types are most frequently found within admissions
ambassadors?
RQ2 What is the relationship between personality type among admissions ambassadors
and job performance?
RQ3 In which performance rating category does each personality type receive the
highest rating?
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 10
Methods
The following discussion of methods is divided into both quantitative and qualitative
procedures. This research project utilized a duel methods approach, implementing both research
tactics. This section will discuss each method separately.
Participants
Participants were selected using non-random convenience sampling from five admissions
ambassador programs from colleges and universities in Utah. Because of the nature of the
research questions, participants had to be an ambassador at an institution of higher education in
Utah in order to participate. The ambassador programs used in the project were also selected
using convenience sampling. At the onset of the study, it was anticipated that over 200
ambassadors would complete the survey. Between the five participating institutions, 240
ambassadors were invited to take the survey. Participation was on a voluntary basis. If they
chose not to participate there was neither penalty nor loss of benefit to which they were
otherwise entitled. One hundred thirty-three responses were received from the personality
assessment.
All participants were informed this survey was part of a research project being completed
in conjunction with a thesis for a Master of Professional Communication student. Incentives
were not offered or awarded for completing this survey.
Of the total valid responses received, 63 (47.7%) were male and 69 (52.3%) were female
(see Figure 1). Of the respondents, 15 (11.4%) were students at Utah State University-Eastern,
39 (29.5%) were students at Utah State University, 16 (12.1%) were students at Snow College,
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 11
42 (31.8%) were students at Southern Utah University, and 20 (15.2%) were students from
Weber State University (see Figure 2).
Figure 1
Figure 2
One respondent clearly falsified the answers by using an incorrect name and answering
all 77 questions of the personality survey in two minutes. In order to maintain the integrity of the
data, it was decided to not include that response in the research.
63
69
Gender
Male
Female
39
42
15
20
16
Institution
Utah State University
Southern Utah
University
USU - Eastern
Weber State
University
Snow College
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 12
Quantitative methods
The first step in the project was to collect the personality data using two surveys in
Google Forms. The first survey contained an informed consent form and collected demographic
information such as name, gender, tenure as an ambassador, and school. It also asked them to
submit a four-digit code to be used on the second survey (see Appendix 4). After completing this
survey, each participant was given a link to the second survey. By having two separate surveys,
the researcher was able to collect the personality assessment data without directly connecting it
to information that would allow someone to identify the individual participants.
The second survey was a 77-question personality questionnaire (see Appendix 5). The
Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test was used to measure and define personalities of the
respondents (Keirsey, 1998). Many personality tests exist and could have been used but were too
broad in their scope, required specialized training in order to distribute, or were excessively time-consuming.
The Keirsey test is thorough but not too in depth. Because it can be self-administered,
it does not require any special training or certification in order to distribute.
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter identifies four core temperaments (Keirsey, 1999).
These core temperaments are identified by a two-letter abbreviation and a name: Artisans (SP),
Guardians (SJ), Idealists (NF), and Rationals (NT).
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 13
2-Letter Code Name Description
SP
Artisans
Tend to be fun-loving, optimistic, and realistic. They love to
be spontaneous and bold. It is easy to get them excited about
something. This excitement adds to their playful nature.
SJ
Guardians
Are dependable, helpful, and hard-working. They are very
loyal to those they love and respect. They are very dedicated
to the task at hand, but have a lot of fun with friends as well.
NF
Idealists
Take pride in being loving, kindhearted, and authentic. They
make inspirational leaders. They are very enthusiastic and
have the ability to look for potential in others. They value
friendly cooperation.
NT
Rationals
Tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, strong willed, and logical.
They can be extremely independent and self-contained. They
focus on solving the problems that face them. Because of this
problem solving ability, they are strategic leaders who
constantly seek high levels of achievement.
These four core temperaments can each be categorized into four additional individualized
categories, creating a total of 16 possible personality types.
Artisans (SP)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ESTP Promoter Witty, clever, and fun, they live with a theatrical flourish
which makes even the most routine events seem exciting.
Have a knack for knowing where the action is.
ISTP Crafter Have an innate ability to command tools and to become
expert at all the crafts requiring tool skills. Find enjoyment if
it’s impulsive, unplanned, serving no purpose other than the
doing.
ESFP Performer High-spirited and fun-loving. Take great interest in
stimulating those around them, even charming them. Often
described as the center of attention or life of the party.
ISFP Composer Tend to express themselves through action rather than
verbally. Prefer to feel the pulse of life through their five
senses.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 14
Guardians (SJ)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ESTJ Supervisor Are squarely on the side of rules and procedures, and can be
quite serious about seeing to it that others toe the mark. They
go by the book and keep their feel firmly on the ground.
They are sociable and civic-minded and are usually pillars of
their community.
ISTJ Inspector Look carefully and thoroughly at the people around them.
Characterized by decisiveness in practical affairs and are
“super dependable.” Their words seem to be simple and
down-to-earth.
ESFJ Provider Take the role of social contributor, happily giving their time
and energy to make sure that the needs of others are met.
Highly cooperative and maintain teamwork among their
helpers.
ISFJ Protector Primary desire is to be of service to others. They are diligent
and willing to work long hours. Thoroughness and frugality
are important to them. They are humble to the core.
Idealists (NF)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ENFJ Teacher Have a natural ability to lead others toward learning. They
are wonderful group leaders because their enthusiasm can
inspire other to live up to their expectations. Naturally
communicate personal concern.
INFJ Counselor Strive to help people realize their human potential. Can be
complicated, reserved, and mysterious. Extremely sensitive
to people and can recognize another’s emotions or intentions
– whether good or evil.
ENFP Champion Find profound meaning in people and events. Want to
experience all the significant developments in the world.
Their enthusiasm is boundless and often contagious. Others
look up to them for wisdom, inspiration, courage, and
leadership.
INFP Healer Present a tranquil and pleasant face to the world, but inside
they are anything but serene. Have a deep sense of idealism
that comes from a strong sense of right and wrong. Though
reserved and soft-spoken, they are fierce protectors of home
and family.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 15
Rationals (NT)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ENTJ Fieldmarshal Born leaders; ready, willing, and able to command people.
Bring order and efficiency wherever they are. There must be
a reason for doing anything, and people’s feelings usually are
not sufficient reason.
INTJ Mastermind Skilled in forming contingency plans. While they may appear
quiet, they usually rise to positions of responsibility due to
their long, hard work ethic. They are steady in the pursuit of
their goals. Have a drive to completion.
ENTP Inventor They are intensely curious and continuously probe for
possibilities. Have an insatiable hunger for knowledge. Tend
to be non-conformists, stave off routine, and give themselves
room for creativity. Seldom critical or nagging.
INTP Architect Believe that the world exists to be analyzed, understood, and
explained. Curiosity concerning the world’s fundamental
principles and natural laws is a driving force for them. They
prize intelligence and can seem arrogant or impatient toward
others with less ability or who are less driven.
For the purpose of this study, I examined both the core temperament types as well as the
four-letter code personality types of the participants. For comprehensive and detailed
descriptions of the personality types, refer to The Sixteen Types (Keirsy, 1998).
The results of the survey were confidential but not anonymous. In order to compare the
personality types of the participants with their performance rating, it was necessary to know the
names of the respondents.
Qualitative methods
In addition to a personality assessment, I needed to determine and qualify the job
performance of each participant. Participant observation was used to accomplish this objective.
Each supervisor conducted these observations for the ambassadors at their institution. This type
of qualitative research was chosen because it is particularly useful in observing the participants
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 16
in their natural setting (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). It is also useful in qualifying the participant’s
communication process over time.
All five colleges already implemented their own performance rating systems. But this
research project required a performance rating system that could be used universally among all
participating institutions. Specifically, the job performance rating system needed to answer the
question of how effective these individuals are as ambassadors.
Individual interviews were conducted to determine the criteria for rating the participants.
Five recruitment officers and/or ambassador advisors from the participating institutions
volunteered to take part in these interviews. Based on the results from the interviews, a rating
system was developed that would be used to qualify the job performance in four areas;
interpersonal communication, work ethic, self-motivation, and commitment to the program. Each
area would be rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale.
Once the criteria for ranking were established, all five professional staff members began
evaluating the respondents from their school.
A complete list of questions and discussion topics was developed and was used in each
interview, but during the course of each conversation, additional follow-up questions may have
been asked and some of the planned questions were intentionally omitted due to time restraints.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 17
Results
The following results are divided into both quantitative and qualitative outcomes. This
research project utilized a duel methods approach, implementing both research tactics. This
section will discuss the results of each method separately.
Quantitative results
Of the 132 respondents, 84 (63.6%) had a “SJ” temperament, 34 (25.8%) had a “NF”
temperament, 12 (9.1%) had a “SP” temperament, and two (1.5%) had a “NT temperament (see
Figure 3).
Looking at the more specific personality groups, it was found that only 12 of the 16
personality types were represented among respondents. Of the 132 respondents, 51 (38.6%) had
an ESFJ personality type, 17 (12.9%) had an ESTJ personality type, 12 (9.1%) had an ENFJ
personality type, 11 (8.3%) had an ENFP personality type, 10 (7.6%) had an ISFJ personality
type, eight (6.1%) had either an ESFP or INFJ personality type, six (4.5%) had an ISTJ
personality type, three (2.3%) had an INFP personality type, and two (1.5%) had either an ESTP,
ISFP, or ENTJ personality type (see Figure 4).
Figure 3
84
34
12 2
Temperament
SJ
NF
SP
NT
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 18
Figure 4
Measures of central tendency and dispersion were computed to summarize the length of
time the participant had been an ambassador. Of 132 ambassadors, the average amount of time
they had worked was 1.92 years; N=132, M=1.92, SD=1.03.
Measures of central tendency and dispersion were also computed to summarize the
performance ratings for all categories including the overall performance rating. Results for
overall performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.73, SD=.1.94. Results for interpersonal
communication performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=8.12, SD=.1.62. Results for work
ethic performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=8.01, SD=.1.98. Results for self-motivation
performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.81, SD=.2.20. Results for commitment to the
program performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.94, SD=1.91.
2 8
2
17
6
51
10
12
8
11
3 2
Personality
ESTP
ESFP
ISFP
ESTJ
ISTJ
ESFJ
ISFJ
ENFJ
INFJ
ENFP
INFP
ENTJ
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 19
One purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the number of
temperaments or personality types among admission ambassadors.
First, the four temperaments were examined: SP, SJ, NF, and NT. A one-variable Chi
square test was run (χ2(3) = 121.33, p <.05). The results indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference in the number of personality types observed. An examination of the data
shows the biggest difference exists in the number of observed frequencies of SJ personalities in
comparison to the other three groups. Analysis also showed a large difference in the number of
observed NT personality types. It was found that the SP and NF groups were more similar in the
number of observed frequencies and is assumed that the significance is not found in the
frequencies of these two variables (see Appendix 1).
Next, the 12 personality types were examined. A one-variable Chi square test was run
(χ2(11) = 180.73, p <.05). The results indicate there is a statistically significant difference in the
number of personality types observed. An examination of the data shows the biggest difference
exists in the number of observed frequencies of ESFJ personalities in comparison to the other
groups. It was found that the remaining groups were more similar in the number of observed
frequencies and is assumed that the significance is not found in the frequencies of these variables
(see Appendix 1).
A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare each of the four
temperament types with the performance rating categories. There was no statistical difference in
the overall performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .22, p>.05].
Likewise, there was no statistical difference in the interpersonal communication performance
rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .06, p>.05], the work ethic performance
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 20
rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .50, p>.05], the self-motivation
performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .72, p>.05], or the
commitment to the program performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)=
.24, p>.05] (See Appendix 2).
There was also a one-way between subjects ANOVA conducted to compare each of the
12 personality types with the performance-rating categories. Similar to the four temperament
groups, there was no statistical difference in the overall performance rating between each
personality type [F(3, 128)= .14, p>.05], the work ethic performance rating between each
personality type [F(3, 128)= .09, p>.05], the self-motivation performance rating between each
personality type [F(3, 128)= .14, p>.05], or the commitment to the program performance rating
between each personality type [F(3, 128)= .18, p<.05]. There was, however, a statistical
difference in the interpersonal communication performance rating between each temperament
category [F(3, 128)= .01, p>.05] (See Appendix 2).
In order to determine exactly where the difference exists, post hoc comparisons using the
Tukey HSD were used. These comparisons indicated the mean rating for ISFP personality type
(M = 4.50, SD = 3.53) was significantly different than ESTJ personality type (M = 8.71, SD =
1.72), ESFJ personality type (M = 8.43, SD = 1.25), and ENFJ personality type (M = 8.58, SD =
1.24).
Finally, a one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the overall
performance ratings from each of the schools. There was a significant difference between the
scores at the five different institutions [F(4, 127)= .00, p<.05]. Post hoc comparisons using the
Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Snow College (M = 8.75, SD = 1.39) and SUU
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 21
(M = 8.79, SD = .98) were significantly higher than USU (M = 6.92, SD = 1.53), WSU (M =
6.95, SD = 1.96), and USU-Eastern (M = 6.80, SD = 3.26). These results show the individuals
conducting the performance evaluations at Snow and SUU gave significantly higher ratings in
comparison to the individuals at USU, WSU, and USU-Eastern (see Appendix 5).
Qualitative results
One of the challenges unique to this research project was defining what a “good”
ambassador is. Although the participating institutions have ambassador programs with similar
functions, each office gives their ambassadors different responsibilities and requirements. This
made it difficult to define and ultimately rate the performance of each participant. In order to
establish reliability in the rating scale, it was necessary to conduct interviews with each
supervisor conducting the performance evaluations. The purpose of the interviews was to
develop a rating scale that would be as universally effective as possible despite the individual
differences between the ambassador programs.
Individual Interviews
The following section represents an overview of the dialogue that took place during the
individual interviews. A more in-depth and detailed transcription was recorded (see Appendix 3).
It was found that all ambassador programs used their students to conduct campus tours,
visit high schools, attend college fairs, and help answer questions from prospective students.
Each program utilizes their ambassadors with slight variations, but the general consensus was an
ambassador’s role is to provide a student’s perspective of the institution. Additionally, it was
found that an ambassador’s most critical function is to interact with a wide variety of people.
They need to be hard workers and have high interpersonal communication skills.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 22
Each advisor indicated they tried to hire a variety of personality types. The believed there
was not a “cookie cutter” ambassador. Rather, they reported that they tried to hire those
ambassadors who they felt could bring something unique to their team.
The examination showed that the advisors looked for traits such as leadership experience,
high energy, commitment, self-motivation, and critical thinking abilities during the ambassador
evaluation process. Creative and outgoing personality traits were also desirable to the
supervisors.
As mentioned previously, it was a challenge to define what a “good” ambassador is. But
following the interviews, it was determined that commitment to the program could be a viable
measure of effectiveness. It was clear that an attitude of helping was important in determining
the difference between a “good” and a “bad” ambassador. Higher ranking ambassadors seem to
have an innate desire to serve those around them. They look for ways to help. One interviewee
described it by saying, “This is a personal philosophy, but I believe people are motivated by one
of three basic reasons, each one more noble than the one preceding it; fear, duty, then love. Most
of us are motivated by one of these at a given time, but great ambassadors do what they do
because they love those they serve.”
It was determined that each school had its own way of evaluating ambassador
performance. Each school judged performance based on the expectations laid out in a contract.
The manner in evaluating these expectations varied from school to school, but ultimately
individual job performance was based on how well the contract was fulfilled.
An examination of the relationship between personality and performance was brought up
during these interviews. It was the feeling of the advisors that they tend to hire individuals with
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 23
very outgoing personalities. However, a belief was found that it is difficult to find an ambassador
who was exceptional at all the tasks ambassadors are asked to perform.
Interview Results
Following the interviews, it was determined that many of the topics addressed could be
categorized into four main areas. These four themes seemed to be important to all of the
supervisors, no matter how they used their ambassadors. Each supervisor rated participants from
their institution based on the following criteria:
1. Interpersonal Communication Skills – They have the ability to relate to a wide
variety of individuals: students, parents, counselors, campus partners, etc. They are
confident in what they say, how they say it, and when they say it. They’re friendly
and have a desire to help in any situation. They maintain composure under pressure.
2. Work Ethic – They're reliable, consistent, responsible, punctual, proactive and
organized. They are adaptable and can change at a moment’s notice. They have the
ability to think critically about the tasks at hand and act accordingly.
3. Self-motivated – They have a desire to continuously learn and improve. Even the
most experienced ambassadors can still learn things. They are willing to take
ownership of projects and see them through to completion. They hold themselves
accountable to expectations. They not only do what is expected of them but strive to
exceed the expectation. They have the ability and desire to seek out tasks without
being told. They have the self-discipline to be productive at all times.
4. Committed to the program – They see and understand the purpose of the
ambassador program and are invested in building upon that vision. They truly want to
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 24
serve the individuals they come in contact with. They are dedicated to the mission of
the admissions and recruitment offices. They have knowledge of the institution
mission and opportunities.
In addition to scoring participants in each of these four areas, supervisors were asked to
give each of their participants an overall rating. Results of the measures of central tendency from
these performance evaluations can be found in the quantitative results section of this paper.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 25
Discussion
Quantitative Discussion
Research Question 1 asked what the most commonly found personality types among
admissions ambassadors were. One of the most interesting findings was the statistically
significant difference in the observed core temperaments and personality types. By far the most
common temperament was SJ, or Guardians. This core temperament seems to be very dedicated
to the task at hand, yet still desires to make the job as fun as possible. It was also intriguing to
find that out of 132 participants only two had the personality type NT or Rationals. This core
temperament tends to be extremely independent and self-contained. These findings were most
surprising because compared with the qualitative findings supervisors felt they didn’t look for a
specific type of personality when making hiring decisions. In fact, they claimed to avoid the
practice of hiring a certain “type” of ambassador. However, according to these results,
ambassador programs hire a statistically significant number of SJ students while avoiding NT
students, despite their best efforts.
Looking into the more specific personality types, similar results were discovered. A
surprising number of ESFJ personality types, which is a subcategory of the SJ core temperament,
were present in comparison to all other types. This could be because of the responsibilities
ambassadors are asked to perform. It was found that each supervisor viewed the role of
ambassadors to be a representative of their institution – literally someone to be the “face” of the
university in many aspects. ESFJ type personalities tend to be more gregarious. Words used to
describe this type of individual include playmate, liberator, optimistic, and excited (Keirsey,
1998). They like to perform. If the supervisors are looking for people to represent their school, it
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 26
is understandable that ESFJ type personalities would rise to the top. Their traits were identified
by the supervisors in the evaluations as indicators of good ambassadors.
Another responsibility ambassadors are asked to fulfill could help explain why so many
ESFJ personality types surfaced in this study. The role of an ambassador is also to be a mentor
for prospective students and answer the many questions that come up during the college decision
process. It was noted in the review of the literature that ambassadors help answer challenging
questions while working to ease the fears of worried parents and hesitant students (Fippinger,
2009). The personality of ESFJ tends to take the role of social contributor, happily giving their
time and energy to make sure that the needs of others are met. While it may be unintentional,
hiring committees may recognize this trait during the hiring process and have a tendency to hire
this specific personality type.
The data don’t seem to provide a clear answer as to why only two students with NT core
temperament were found among all participants. It may be because this personality type tends to
shy away from the spotlight. Unlike people with the SJ temperament, they do not like to perform.
Words used to describe this personality include pragmatism, skepticism, calm, reason, and
individual (Keirsy, 1998). Perhaps the reason why there are so few of this type is that people
with this temperament don’t even apply to become an admissions ambassador because they have
no desire to be put in front of groups of people.
Research Question 2 attempted to identify a relationship between high performance
ratings and certain personality types. Based on the findings, there is no statistically significant
difference in the any of the performance rating categories of each of the four temperaments. The
low numbers in some of the groups, such as NT, could have contributed to this lack of
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 27
significance. There was, however, one category in which a significant difference could be
identified when looking at the 12 different personality types. The mean overall performance
rating for ISFP, or Composer, was significantly lower than three of the other personality types:
ESTJ (Supervisor), ESFJ (Provider), and ENFJ (Teacher). One of the purposes of this study was
to determine if specific personality types performed significantly higher or lower than the
majority of other categories. If significance could be identified, hiring managers could possibly
use personality type to help make decisions during the selection process. While it is interesting to
identify that one of the 12 groups was significantly different, having discovered only one
difference does not provide the evidence to support the use of personality assessment as a
defining tool in the hiring process.
Qualitative Discussion
This research project did not intend to identify or examine differences between the five
ambassador programs that participated in the project. But some interesting variances were
discovered. It was found that the most basic responsibility of ambassadors in all five programs is
to recruit prospective students. The way each institution uses ambassadors toward this end was
unique and eye-opening.
Weber State University (WSU) seemed to put more of a focus on giving each ambassador
one high school to be in charge of. The ambassadors take personal responsibility for the success
at their school. They are heavily involved in the goal setting and planning for their assigned high
school. In addition to their high school, they conduct campus tours, work more office hours than
any of the other schools, and even serve as New Student Orientation group leaders. Their role in
Orientation is the biggest difference in comparison to the other schools.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 28
Utah State University (USU) takes a much different approach. It has the most
ambassadors out of the five programs and has more flexibility in how it uses them. USU
ambassadors have different groups of ambassadors assigned to specific tasks. Some are assigned
to give campus tours; others are assigned to be in the high schools. The most unique assignment
they have in comparison to the other schools is that they assign their most experienced
ambassadors to be presidential ambassadors. This group is assigned to work with the university
president and typically act as hosts and hostesses to special guests of the president. They are
typically ambassadors who have been in the program a number of years. USU ambassadors don’t
vary too much in what they do. For example, if they are assigned to visit high schools, they
rarely give campus tours.
Utah State University-Eastern has the fewest number of ambassadors, and thus has the
most varied responsibilities. These ambassadors spend significant amounts of time in high
schools, but aren’t assigned specific schools. They visit a number of schools as often as they can.
They conduct campus tours similar to Weber State ambassadors, but they are not intimately
involved with Orientation. They do, however, take a larger role in campus activities. Due to the
small size of USU-Eastern, any student receiving a leadership scholarship is required to be
involved in on-campus activities. Not only are they required to attend campus events, they
participate in planning many of these events.
The ambassador programs at Snow College and Southern Utah University (SUU) both
have a combination of the responsibilities mentioned among the other institutions. Both
programs have a similar number of ambassadors and use them in a wide variety of tasks. Like
USU-Eastern, recruitment is one of the key roles for their ambassadors, but they also take a
significant role in overall student involvement. They are required to participate on planning
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 29
committees for on-campus events and are required to join multiple clubs and organizations. Like
USU and Weber State, however, their recruitment assignments are specific and limited. They
only visit assigned high schools rather than going to whatever one is convenient for them like
USU-Eastern. Neither of these schools requires office hours for their ambassadors.
While these qualitative findings don’t support or add to any of the research questions,
they were interesting findings.
Limitations
The most profound limitation encountered was the difficulty in defining what a “good”
ambassador is. Research Questions 2 and 3 were completely dependent on the concept of being
able to rate individual ambassadors on their performance. It was challenging to establish a rating
system that could be used effectively for all five institutions. This difficulty was a result of the
fact that the ambassador programs at each institution use their students for a wide variety of
things. Because of this variation, it was found that an individual ambassador could be very good
at one aspect of their job but lack ability in others. When this is the case, it is difficult to give
them an overall rating.
Another limitation associated with the rating system is the difference in how each
supervisor rated ambassadors. For example, performance scores given by one particular
supervisor were higher on average than the others. As described in the results section, there was
a significant difference in how high two supervisors scored their ambassadors in comparison to
the three additional supervisors. For lack of a better description, this caused low inter-coder
reliability. It would add to the reliability of the research if one person could observe and rate
each respondent. While this is an unlikely scenario, it would increase the inter-coder reliability.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 30
The validity of the personality test could be a possible limitation as well. Researchers
have shown that inconsistencies can exist under certain circumstances while administering
personality quizzes (Reddock, Biderman, & Nhung, 2011). One of the most common
inconsistencies is the variation in answers given by participants. Inconsistent answers to the same
questions have been found as individuals take the test multiple times (Reddock, Biderman, &
Nhung, 2011). These inconsistencies should be examined and taken into account for future
research.
Finally, an interesting observation was made in relation to the ambassadors who actually
participated in the personality assessment. At the onset of the study, it was anticipated that over
200 ambassadors would complete the survey. Between the five participating institutions, 240
ambassadors were invited to take the survey. Participation was on a voluntary basis. If they
chose not to participate there was neither penalty nor loss of benefit to which they were
otherwise entitled. One of the admissions advisors observed those students from his school who
chose to participate were the higher performing ambassadors in general. He further recognized
those who did not participate were the students who struggle getting involved in the program and
most likely would have received lower ratings. Thus, another limitation of this study is that only
the more motivated and higher performing ambassadors chose to participate in the first place.
Had all ambassadors who were invited to take the personality assessment participated, the
performance ratings as well as the observed personality types may have changed.
Future Research
Many ideas and opportunities for future research were discovered during the completion
of this project. Most importantly, future research should address the limitation of lack of inter-
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 31
coder reliability. In order to consistently and reliably rate performance, additional methods
should be explored. If one person cannot accurately rate each participant, it might be necessary
to limit the participants to a single school. Using the data set identified in this study, future
research could isolate the students from individual schools instead of combing them all into one
large group.
In addition, there were several independent variables identified through the survey. These
include gender, the length of time a student has been an ambassador, and school. Additional
independent variables could be identified and compared. These could include age, high school,
GPA, or major.
Another key research project should involve using a different personality assessment tool.
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test was chosen for this project because of its
accessibility for distribution. It does not require specialized training or certification in order to
administer. Future research could explore additional assessment tools that may be more specific
and deliberate in identifying personality types.
Conclusion
This research was incredibly eye-opening for me. I learned that selecting the right
ambassadors during the hiring process plays an integral role in establishing a recruitment team
that can accomplish the goals and needs of the university. The review of the literature showed
ambassadors truly do help convey a very strategic image of the university as well as serve as
mentors for prospective students trying to decide which school to attend.
I learned that research supports the need to diversify the tools used in the selection
process. Traditionally, measuring cognitive ability has been a key instrument in predicting job
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 32
performance. But research supports the need for additional tools. While ample evidence exists to
support the reliability of using personality traits to predict job performance in certain industries,
it has not been explored sufficiently in the realm of admission ambassadors.
As we seek data supported answers for relevant, experienced-based questions, we
develop research that we’re truly invested in. I believe the best research is born out of these
experienced-based questions. This study was the product of such a question for me. It was
intriguing to investigate this topic because it is something I am faced with on a daily basis. While
much remains to be learned about the personality types of admission ambassadors, this study
helps open the door to this limited research topic. Findings from ambassador personality research
may provide insight into the efficacy of using students in the college recruitment process.
Continued research will also improve the selection process so hiring committees can avoid the
uncomfortable and costly scenario of having to fire someone they had been certain was a great
candidate.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 33
References
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2001). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial application. New York: Free Press.
Cole, M. S., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Recruiters’ inferences of applicant
personality based on resume screening: Do paper people have a personality? Journal of
Business and Psychology, 24, 5-18.
Conner, M. J. (1994). Peer relations and peer pressure. Educational Psychology in Practice, 9,
207-215.
Caudron, S. (1997). Hire for attitude: It’s who they are that counts. Workforce, 76.
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education,
52(5), 490-505.
Deluga, R. J., & Masson, S. (2000). Relationships of resident assistant conscientiousness,
extraversion, and positive affect with rated performance. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 225-235.
Dickson, G. M., & Thayer, J. D. (1983). Resident assistant temperament: Is there an ideal? The
Journal of College and University Student Housing, 13, 26-32.
Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1999). Interviewer experience and expertise effects. In R. W.
Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 229-292).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dupre, D., Miller, N., Gold, M., & Rospenda, K. (1995). Initiation and progression of alcohol,
marijuana, and cocaine use among adolescent abusers. American Journal on Addictions,
4, 43-48.
Fippinger, A. (2009). An appreciative approach to training undergraduate admissions student
workers. College and University, 85(1), 53-56.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 34
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.
Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and
personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job performance
relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human
Performance, 11, 129-144.
Institute of Personality and Social Research. (2006). Institute of Personality and Social Research
University of California Berkley. Retrieved Oct 16, 2011, from
http://ipsr.berkeley.edu/about.html
Keirsey, D. (1998). The sixteen types. Del Mar, CA: Nemesis Book Compamy.
Keirsey, D. (1999). Please understand me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book
Compamy.
Myers, D. G. (2007). Psychology (8th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Reddock, C. M., Biderman, M. D., & Nguyen, N. T. (2011). The relationship of reliability and
validity of personality tests to frame‐of‐reference instructions and within‐person
inconsistency. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 119-131.
Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 441-472.
Sevier, R. A. (2000). Building an effective recruiting funnel. College Admission, 169, 10-19.
Sevier, R. A., & Kappler, S. D. (1996). What students say: Results of two national surveys of
how students choose a college. Stamats Communications. Retrieved Nov 1, 2012, from
http://www.stamats.com/information/whitepapers/pdfs/WhitePaper3.pdf
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist
model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.
Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to
Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmidt (2007).Personnel
Psychology, 60, 967–993.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 35
Tews, M. J., Stafford, K., & Tracey, J. B. (2011). What matters most? The perceived importance
of ability and personality for hiring decisions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52, 2.
Wu, M. B., & Stemler, S. E. (2008). Resident advisor general intelligence, emotional
intelligence, personality dimensions, and internal belief characteristics as predictors of
rated performance. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 528-559.
Weinrach, S. G., & Srebalus, D.J. (1990). Holland’s theory of careers. Career Choice and
Development: Applying Contemporary Theories to Practice (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass.
Wright, E. W., & Domagalski, T. A. (2011). Improving employee selection with a revised
resume. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 272-286.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 36
Appendix 1
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 37
Appendix 2
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 38
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 39
Running head: AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 1
Appendix 3
Appenix 3 represents an overview of the dialogue that took place during the individual interviews. The
researcher planned a complete list of questions and discussion topics to be used in, but during the course
of each conversation additional follow-up questions may have been asked and some of the planned
questions were intentionally omitted due to time restraints. For the purpose of this transcription, each
question will be presented and the varying answers will be identified using a participant number (P1, P2,
P3, or P4).
1. How does your office utilize student ambassadors/student recruiters?
P1 – We use them to help give a student’s perspective during the recruitment process. We
expect them to be able to interact with a wide variety of people. They go to high schools and
help students get excited about college.
P3 – They help us recruit. They give campus tours and really become the face of the
university. We also use them as orientation tour guides. We require quite a bit of the
ambassadors and use them for a wide variety of things. Many campus partners use them for
their events. They host students who come to campus. We have them work in our office
helping with mailings and communication plans. They really do a lot for our office.
P4 – We have them spend a lot of time in the high schools and at recruitment fairs. They’re
our campus tour guides. Our president uses the older ambassadors as hosts/hostesses at
special events. We use them to make outbound phone calls as well as answer email
questions.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 41
2. What are the most critical functions you ask them perform?
P2 – An overall critical thing we ask them to do is just being able to interact with people.
They need to have a vast knowledge of the university and the opportunities we have to offer.
They also need to be hard workers who we can trust to get the job done. If I had to say the
most important thing, I think the most critical thing would be to be able to recruit students.
P3 – The most important things they do involve working with prospective students. Whether
it’s in a high school, at a college fair, on a campus tour, or on the phone with a student they
have to be able to communicate. They have to want to help people. “If they really want to
help people, they’ll have their best interest at heart and will do what they can to make sure
they have a great experience.”
3. What traits do you look for when hiring these students?
P1 – We look for leadership experience, high energy individuals, and people who are team
players. They need to be creative. They have to be able to change and adapt at a moment’s
notice. They need to be able to both lead and follow.
P2 – We look for hard workers who demonstrate a desire to recruit. We want students who
are dedicated to the school. We really look for students who can interact with others.
P3 – Students with critical thinking abilities. We don’t want to hire a bunch of kids who we
have to babysit or constantly be telling them what to do. “They need to be able to see a
problem and find a solution.”
P4 – “We look for reliable, punctual, dependable students who are willing to take
ownership.” They need to have high interpersonal communication skills. We like to higher
creative outgoing students.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 42
4. In your opinion, what are the most significant factors between a “good”
ambassador and a “bad” ambassador?
P1 – Our most successful ambassadors seem to be the ones who have a high level of buy-in
to our philosophy. “Calling them ‘good’ or ‘bad’ seems kind of harsh, but when they really
commit to what we’re trying to do with our program, they seem to enjoy it more and really
work for our objectives.”
P2 – “Being an ambassador means different things to different people. But the best
ambassadors have a desire to serve others.” Being self-motivated is also a good indicator of a
great ambassador.
P3 – They need to have a desire to continuously improve. They all start out as excited
freshman who want to do be the best they can be, but some of them seem to taper off in
productivity the longer they’re an ambassador. The good ambassadors always are trying to
improve and realize there’s always something they can learn.
P4 – “This is a personal philosophy, but I believe people are motivated by one of three basic
reasons, each one more noble than the one preceding it; fear, duty, then love. Most of us are
motivated by one of these at a given time, but great ambassadors do what they do because
they love those they serve. We’re in the business of helping people and the best ambassadors
have a burning desire to help.”
5. How do you evaluate their performance?
P1 & P2 – We hold interviews each semester and have created evaluations to measure their
performance. The professional recruiter who works most closely with them reviews their
performance from the past semester and sets goals for the upcoming one. They’re basically
an opportunity to encourage them to keep doing the best they can.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 43
P3- We developed something we call “justifications.” They are annual meetings in which the
ambassadors must prove, or justify, why they should be part of the team. It gives us a chance
to look at what they’ve accomplished and work on ways they can improve.
P4 – We really don’t have an evaluation process. They’re only ambassadors for two years. If
they don’t fulfill their contract, then they aren’t re-hired the following year.
6. What criteria do you use when evaluating their performance?
P1 & P2 – They sign a contract at the beginning of the year which lays out all of their
responsibilities. The contract is very explicit in our expectations and any consequences for
non-compliance. They are graded on work ethic, timeliness, the number of recruitment
activities they’ve participated in, and involvement on campus.
P3 – They basically have to justify why they should be receiving their scholarship. We look
at how effectively they’ve fulfilled their duties and make sure they’ve completed everything.
We look at involvement, we test their knowledge of campus by having them take a quiz, and
we look at how many high school visits they attended. We try to provide feedback and set
goals to help them improve.
7. In your experience, how does personality relate to performance?
P1 – I think we typically try to hire people with very outgoing personalities. Our
ambassadors do such a wide variety of things, even if they’re not the most outgoing person,
they can still be a great ambassador.
P3 – The way we use our ambassadors, we like to have a very exuberant type of personality.
They are with people so much they need to be able to interact and entertain. We want
ambassadors who can entertain. The more their personality allows them to do that, the better
they seem to perform.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 44
P4 – “I can’t seem to find very many ambassadors who are great at everything. Some have
personalities that make them great office workers, while others are more extraverted and are
great at presenting and working with people. I’m not sure personality matters as much as
simply having a desire to help people in their own way with their own abilities.”
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 45
Appendix 4
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 46
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 47
Appendix 5
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 48
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 49
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 50
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 51
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 52
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 53
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 54
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 55
Appendix 5

The author has granted Weber State University Archives a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce his or her theses, in whole or in part, in electronic or paper form and to make it available to the general public at no charge. The author retains all other rights.

The author has granted Weber State University Archives a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce his or her theses, in whole or in part, in electronic or paper form and to make it available to the general public at no charge. The author retains all other rights.

Full-Text

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Although my name appears alone on the title page of this thesis, many people have
helped along the way. Were it not for their support, expertise, and encouragement I could not
have completed this thesis or the graduate degree. I dedicate this page to thank those who have
helped me along the pathway to attaining this important goal.
I would like to thank the faculty of the Master of Professional Communication at Weber
State University for providing challenging coursework and teaching me how to critically
evaluate new concepts and perspectives. I sincerely enjoyed my experience with each professor
and will fondly remember the time spent in their courses.
My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Sheree Josephson in her role initially as director of
the MPC program, and later as my committee chair. Her passion for research helped plant within
me a deep-seeded curiosity in using quantitative data to answer the questions that intrigue me.
Her patience and persistence have been invaluable resources in helping me complete this thesis.
Had it not been for the empowering encouragement from Dr. Bruce Bowen, associate
provost for enrollment services at WSU, this endeavor would have been delayed even longer
than it was. I would like to thank him for helping me recognize time would pass regardless of my
progression towards a graduate degree. He was a primary motivator to embark on this journey.
In addition, I want to thank Scott Teichert, director of admissions at WSU, for taking on a
variety of roles throughout the completion of this degree. He provided critical insight as a
committee member for this thesis. He also has been a confidant, mentor, guide, teacher, boss,
and a great coach both professionally and during my time in the MPC program. But most of all,
I’d like to thank him for his friendship.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, McKenzie Hopkin. The
past two and half years have been filled with many exciting changes in our lives; a new job,
moving multiple times, the birth of our first child, and buying our first home. The time
commitment for the MPC program has been a weight she has had to carry alongside me. She has
been my greatest supporter the entire way and without her willingness to bear so many burdens, I
would not have been able to complete this degree. I thank her for her practical and emotional
support.
Running head: AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 1
Are We Hiring the Right Students?
Exploring personality traits and job performance among admissions ambassadors
W. Francis Hopkin
Weber State University
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 2
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted to examine the frequency of personality types among admissions
ambassadors in Utah. The study examined the relationship between personality and overall job
performance ratings. One hundred thirty-two participants from five colleges and universities in
Utah were surveyed to determine their personality type. The personality types were identified
using the Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test. The four types of personalities used in
this test are artisans, guardians, idealists, and rationals. The same participants were then rated by
their supervisors based on their performance as admissions ambassadors. Individual interviews
were conducted with the ambassador supervisors from each of the schools in order to determine
what categories should be used to measure job performance of the participants. These interviews
were also used to define an appropriate performance rating scale. The frequencies of personality
types revealed a significant difference in the types of personalities among the participants. There
was also significance found in the relationship between the different personality types and
performance ratings. It was discovered that the individuals conducting the performance
evaluations at certain schools gave significantly higher ratings in comparison to other
individuals.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 3
Literature Review
An extremely disappointed, and maybe even angry, admissions ambassador hung his
head and left his supervisor’s office. The advisor couldn’t help but ask himself, “How did this
happen?” It had only one been one year since that particular student had captivated everyone
during his interview to become an admissions ambassador. He had impressed committee
members so much that they unanimously elected to hire him. This was unheard of. Out of the
nine other applicants that day, none of them passed through the process with such ease.
Despite his positive first impression, this particular ambassador seemed to struggle in the
program from the beginning. Whether it was his lack of attention to detail or the inability to stay
focused, it seemed he just didn’t have the personality traits typically seen in high-performing
ambassadors. His inability to meet the expectations of the organization led to the uncomfortable
discussion in his supervisor’s office. Following his termination, the supervisor continued to
wonder how he could have been so wrong about someone everyone was so excited to hire. What
could they have done to identify potential warning signs that may have existed in this candidate?
This research study will examine the relationship between the personality traits and job
performance of student recruiters in an attempt to identify tools that can be used to ensure the
selection of the best possible candidates for this critical position.
Importance of student recruiters
Student recruiters, often called admission ambassadors, are undergraduate students on
college campuses who provide prospective students and their families with a current students’
perspective of life on campus. Ambassadors help answer challenging questions while working to
ease the fears of worried parents and hesitant students (Fippinger, 2009). Different institutions
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 4
utilize these ambassadors in a variety of ways. But no matter how they are used, the principal
purpose ambassadors fulfill is to provide assistance for prospective students during the college
decision process.
While many factors affect the college choice process, as early as 1981 research indicated
that current college students can be a major influencing factor of college choice for prospective
students (Chapman, 1981). As teenagers progress toward adulthood, they increasingly look to
their peers for advice, acceptance, and validation. The decision of what college to attend is being
made at a tumultuous time in the life of the student. Thus, this transitional decision can be
greatly facilitated by the assistance of capable peers. Abundant research concludes that during
this time in an adolescent’s life, teenagers tend to trust the opinion of their peers as much as
anyone (Conner, 1994; Dupre, Miller, Gold, & Rospenda, 1995).
Recognizing the impact peers have on college choice, recruitment professionals rely
heavily on the perception current students can offer prospective students during the recruitment
process. Colleges want to be viewed as having a friendly, welcoming atmosphere. By using
student ambassadors to give campus tours, appear in promotional materials, and act as peer
mentors, colleges can positively affect the experience prospective students have while
researching a school. Prospective students depend upon their interaction with ambassadors as a
way of validating everything they have read or heard about an institution (Sevier, 2000). Two
marketing professionals, Sevier and Kappler (1996) recognize this phenomenon and point out
that students desperately want to know how friendly the campus is and if they will fit in and be
accepted. Three strategies – the campus visit, the type of photographs used in the recruiting
funnel, and how the student is generally treated – are primary avenues through which
friendliness must be projected (Sevier & Kappler, 1996).
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 5
It has become a common practice within higher education to hire student leaders to give
campus tours, visit local high schools, attend recruitment fairs, and act as orientation group
leaders, all in an attempt to create a friendly, accepting environment associated with their
institutions. These student recruiters must enjoy meeting new people, developing relationships,
and extolling the virtues of their school (Fippinger, 2009). In the competitive world of college
recruiting, enrollment goals hinge on the institution’s ability to select the best student recruiters
and leaders to act as ambassadors and representatives of the college.
Job performance and personality
Because these student ambassadors can have such an influential impact on how the
college is perceived, it is essential the process used to hire these students is sound and attracts the
right type of applicant.
Hiring processes in general have traditionally placed great value in a job interview or a
professional resume in order to select candidates. Interviews have been an assessment tool in
attempting to identify an applicant’s cognitive ability, job knowledge, social skills, and even
aspects of their personality (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Resumes are routinely used by
organizations because of their perceived effectiveness and low cost in evaluating the alignment
between the requirements of the job and the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics
of job applicants (Dipboye & Jackson, 1999).
Ironically, past research contradicts this practice by showing that those conducting these
interviews tend to exaggerate their own ability to predict future job performance based on a
singular interview (Myers, 2007). Research also suggests that employment recruiters often look
beyond the objective data presented in resumes to make inferences about subjective information
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 6
such as personality characteristics (Wright & Domagalski, 2011). Additional research found that
many personality characteristics were not reliably discernible and did not demonstrate validity
when compared with actual personality scores for a sample of graduating college students (Cole
et al., 2009).
As a result, many organizations have explored alternative methods to incorporate in the
hiring process. One approach has been to examine personality traits as predictors of job
performance.
Identifying personality traits during the hiring process is not a new concept. The Institute
of Personality and Social Research (IPSR) at the University of California-Berkeley is one of the
leaders in this field. As early as 1949, IPSR began conducting research on how well personality
could predict job performance (IPSR, 2006). It specifically attempted to determine job
performance in military settings. It looked at such things as what personalities would make good
behind-the-lines secret agents during World War II (Caudron, 1997). It was found that military
personnel with similar personalities tended to be attracted to the same jobs (Weinrach &
Srebalus, 1990).
Although the practice of identifying personality traits during the hiring process began in
the mid-1900s, it has commonly been met with great skepticism. In 1965, researchers believed it
was impossible to conduct a review of the criterion-related validity of personality due to the lack
of available studies in the literature (Guion & Gottier, 1965). Since that time, ample research has
been conducted to establish the credibility of the practice. Researchers have been particularly
interested in the use of personality assessment being implemented during the hiring process, and
research studies were designed to examine the role of personality within personnel selection
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). Thanks to studies such as these, the initial skepticism surrounding the
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 7
role of personality in the selection process has been converted into a confidence that it can be an
invaluable tool to aid in the selection process (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Additionally, Tews,
Stafford and Tracey (2011) found that while general mental ability was a very strong predictor of
employee performance, it still isn’t as powerful of a forecaster as personality.
Personality Theories
Many tools and techniques exist to aid a selection committee in the hiring process.
Personality-based assessments are becoming more popular in determining the best candidate for
the position. Hiring professionals have discovered that no matter how skilled and competent the
candidate is, it’s the less-obvious personality traits that allow employees to grow and progress
within an organization (Caudron, 1997). These traits include, but are not limited to, how they
communicate with co-workers, how they handle conflict, or how they manage their time.
The emergence of these tools and techniques has relied on the evolution of different
personality theories. Hogan and Shelton’s socioanalytic perspective on performance theory
(Hogan & Shelton, 1998) has been one of the leading theories. Hogan and Shelton contend that
personality factors, specifically social skills, allow people to more successfully accomplish their
occupational goals (1998). In addition, Tett and Burnett (2003) offer a theory of "trait activation"
to explain how any given trait comes to be related to job performance. Trait activation theory
proposes that five individual situational features are applicable to trait expression (job demands,
distracters, constraints, releasers, and facilitators), operating at task, social, and organizational
levels (Tett & Burnett, 2003). While trait activation theory is complex, it provides a framework
that offers a promising foundation for improving personality test validity in work settings (Tett &
Christiansen, 2007). One of the most widely accepted models of personality traits is the Five
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 8
Factor Model of Personality (Wu & Stemler, 2008). This model is commonly referred to as the
“Big Five Model” (Wu & Stemler, 2008). This model emerged as a product of decades of
research in the field of personality theory. As a result, fairly broad agreements regarding the
structural organization of traits in terms of five domains were developed: agreeableness,
openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability (Goldberg,
1990). One of the personality traits that has received considerable attention is conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness is characterized by behavioral attributes such as dependability, persistence,
and hard work (Wright & Domagalski, 2011). It has been found to correlate with job proficiency
across a wide variety of occupational groups including professionals, managers, and semiskilled
jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Moy & Lam, 2004).
Another common theme among many personality theories is that of leadership in relation
to personality (Bass, 1990; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan,1994). For quite some time, psychologists
have recognized that by combining the study of cognitive ability and personality, they can
predict job effectiveness reasonably well (Hogan & Holland, 2003), especially in managerial
jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
A review of the literature showing a strong relationship between personality and general
job performance is abundant and accessible. However, research related to personality and job
effectiveness in college-age students is less plentiful. A few studies have shown that the success
of Resident Assistants (RAs) can be linked to certain personality traits (Wu & Stemler, 2008).
RAs who are social, warm, friendly, and extraverted were identified as more effective (Dickson
& Thayer, 1983). Likewise, personality traits of positive affect and extraversion were positively
associated with job performance (Deluga & Masson, 2000). But little research has been done to
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 9
look at the more specific nature of the relationship between personality traits in admissions
ambassadors and performance ratings.
If a strong relationship can be found between successful admissions ambassadors and
certain personality types, college recruiting professionals can improve their ability to ensure the
selection of the best possible candidates for this critical position. By selecting the best possible
candidates, they will then be able to more effectively portray a friendly, accepting atmosphere
that prospective students are hoping to find during the college selection process.
The purpose of this study is to begin looking at relationships between personality and
performance ratings of student recruiters and leaders. The project will answer the following
research questions:
RQ1 What personality types are most frequently found within admissions
ambassadors?
RQ2 What is the relationship between personality type among admissions ambassadors
and job performance?
RQ3 In which performance rating category does each personality type receive the
highest rating?
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 10
Methods
The following discussion of methods is divided into both quantitative and qualitative
procedures. This research project utilized a duel methods approach, implementing both research
tactics. This section will discuss each method separately.
Participants
Participants were selected using non-random convenience sampling from five admissions
ambassador programs from colleges and universities in Utah. Because of the nature of the
research questions, participants had to be an ambassador at an institution of higher education in
Utah in order to participate. The ambassador programs used in the project were also selected
using convenience sampling. At the onset of the study, it was anticipated that over 200
ambassadors would complete the survey. Between the five participating institutions, 240
ambassadors were invited to take the survey. Participation was on a voluntary basis. If they
chose not to participate there was neither penalty nor loss of benefit to which they were
otherwise entitled. One hundred thirty-three responses were received from the personality
assessment.
All participants were informed this survey was part of a research project being completed
in conjunction with a thesis for a Master of Professional Communication student. Incentives
were not offered or awarded for completing this survey.
Of the total valid responses received, 63 (47.7%) were male and 69 (52.3%) were female
(see Figure 1). Of the respondents, 15 (11.4%) were students at Utah State University-Eastern,
39 (29.5%) were students at Utah State University, 16 (12.1%) were students at Snow College,
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 11
42 (31.8%) were students at Southern Utah University, and 20 (15.2%) were students from
Weber State University (see Figure 2).
Figure 1
Figure 2
One respondent clearly falsified the answers by using an incorrect name and answering
all 77 questions of the personality survey in two minutes. In order to maintain the integrity of the
data, it was decided to not include that response in the research.
63
69
Gender
Male
Female
39
42
15
20
16
Institution
Utah State University
Southern Utah
University
USU - Eastern
Weber State
University
Snow College
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 12
Quantitative methods
The first step in the project was to collect the personality data using two surveys in
Google Forms. The first survey contained an informed consent form and collected demographic
information such as name, gender, tenure as an ambassador, and school. It also asked them to
submit a four-digit code to be used on the second survey (see Appendix 4). After completing this
survey, each participant was given a link to the second survey. By having two separate surveys,
the researcher was able to collect the personality assessment data without directly connecting it
to information that would allow someone to identify the individual participants.
The second survey was a 77-question personality questionnaire (see Appendix 5). The
Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test was used to measure and define personalities of the
respondents (Keirsey, 1998). Many personality tests exist and could have been used but were too
broad in their scope, required specialized training in order to distribute, or were excessively time-consuming.
The Keirsey test is thorough but not too in depth. Because it can be self-administered,
it does not require any special training or certification in order to distribute.
The Keirsey Temperament Sorter identifies four core temperaments (Keirsey, 1999).
These core temperaments are identified by a two-letter abbreviation and a name: Artisans (SP),
Guardians (SJ), Idealists (NF), and Rationals (NT).
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 13
2-Letter Code Name Description
SP
Artisans
Tend to be fun-loving, optimistic, and realistic. They love to
be spontaneous and bold. It is easy to get them excited about
something. This excitement adds to their playful nature.
SJ
Guardians
Are dependable, helpful, and hard-working. They are very
loyal to those they love and respect. They are very dedicated
to the task at hand, but have a lot of fun with friends as well.
NF
Idealists
Take pride in being loving, kindhearted, and authentic. They
make inspirational leaders. They are very enthusiastic and
have the ability to look for potential in others. They value
friendly cooperation.
NT
Rationals
Tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, strong willed, and logical.
They can be extremely independent and self-contained. They
focus on solving the problems that face them. Because of this
problem solving ability, they are strategic leaders who
constantly seek high levels of achievement.
These four core temperaments can each be categorized into four additional individualized
categories, creating a total of 16 possible personality types.
Artisans (SP)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ESTP Promoter Witty, clever, and fun, they live with a theatrical flourish
which makes even the most routine events seem exciting.
Have a knack for knowing where the action is.
ISTP Crafter Have an innate ability to command tools and to become
expert at all the crafts requiring tool skills. Find enjoyment if
it’s impulsive, unplanned, serving no purpose other than the
doing.
ESFP Performer High-spirited and fun-loving. Take great interest in
stimulating those around them, even charming them. Often
described as the center of attention or life of the party.
ISFP Composer Tend to express themselves through action rather than
verbally. Prefer to feel the pulse of life through their five
senses.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 14
Guardians (SJ)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ESTJ Supervisor Are squarely on the side of rules and procedures, and can be
quite serious about seeing to it that others toe the mark. They
go by the book and keep their feel firmly on the ground.
They are sociable and civic-minded and are usually pillars of
their community.
ISTJ Inspector Look carefully and thoroughly at the people around them.
Characterized by decisiveness in practical affairs and are
“super dependable.” Their words seem to be simple and
down-to-earth.
ESFJ Provider Take the role of social contributor, happily giving their time
and energy to make sure that the needs of others are met.
Highly cooperative and maintain teamwork among their
helpers.
ISFJ Protector Primary desire is to be of service to others. They are diligent
and willing to work long hours. Thoroughness and frugality
are important to them. They are humble to the core.
Idealists (NF)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ENFJ Teacher Have a natural ability to lead others toward learning. They
are wonderful group leaders because their enthusiasm can
inspire other to live up to their expectations. Naturally
communicate personal concern.
INFJ Counselor Strive to help people realize their human potential. Can be
complicated, reserved, and mysterious. Extremely sensitive
to people and can recognize another’s emotions or intentions
– whether good or evil.
ENFP Champion Find profound meaning in people and events. Want to
experience all the significant developments in the world.
Their enthusiasm is boundless and often contagious. Others
look up to them for wisdom, inspiration, courage, and
leadership.
INFP Healer Present a tranquil and pleasant face to the world, but inside
they are anything but serene. Have a deep sense of idealism
that comes from a strong sense of right and wrong. Though
reserved and soft-spoken, they are fierce protectors of home
and family.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 15
Rationals (NT)
4-Letter Code Name Description
ENTJ Fieldmarshal Born leaders; ready, willing, and able to command people.
Bring order and efficiency wherever they are. There must be
a reason for doing anything, and people’s feelings usually are
not sufficient reason.
INTJ Mastermind Skilled in forming contingency plans. While they may appear
quiet, they usually rise to positions of responsibility due to
their long, hard work ethic. They are steady in the pursuit of
their goals. Have a drive to completion.
ENTP Inventor They are intensely curious and continuously probe for
possibilities. Have an insatiable hunger for knowledge. Tend
to be non-conformists, stave off routine, and give themselves
room for creativity. Seldom critical or nagging.
INTP Architect Believe that the world exists to be analyzed, understood, and
explained. Curiosity concerning the world’s fundamental
principles and natural laws is a driving force for them. They
prize intelligence and can seem arrogant or impatient toward
others with less ability or who are less driven.
For the purpose of this study, I examined both the core temperament types as well as the
four-letter code personality types of the participants. For comprehensive and detailed
descriptions of the personality types, refer to The Sixteen Types (Keirsy, 1998).
The results of the survey were confidential but not anonymous. In order to compare the
personality types of the participants with their performance rating, it was necessary to know the
names of the respondents.
Qualitative methods
In addition to a personality assessment, I needed to determine and qualify the job
performance of each participant. Participant observation was used to accomplish this objective.
Each supervisor conducted these observations for the ambassadors at their institution. This type
of qualitative research was chosen because it is particularly useful in observing the participants
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 16
in their natural setting (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). It is also useful in qualifying the participant’s
communication process over time.
All five colleges already implemented their own performance rating systems. But this
research project required a performance rating system that could be used universally among all
participating institutions. Specifically, the job performance rating system needed to answer the
question of how effective these individuals are as ambassadors.
Individual interviews were conducted to determine the criteria for rating the participants.
Five recruitment officers and/or ambassador advisors from the participating institutions
volunteered to take part in these interviews. Based on the results from the interviews, a rating
system was developed that would be used to qualify the job performance in four areas;
interpersonal communication, work ethic, self-motivation, and commitment to the program. Each
area would be rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale.
Once the criteria for ranking were established, all five professional staff members began
evaluating the respondents from their school.
A complete list of questions and discussion topics was developed and was used in each
interview, but during the course of each conversation, additional follow-up questions may have
been asked and some of the planned questions were intentionally omitted due to time restraints.
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 17
Results
The following results are divided into both quantitative and qualitative outcomes. This
research project utilized a duel methods approach, implementing both research tactics. This
section will discuss the results of each method separately.
Quantitative results
Of the 132 respondents, 84 (63.6%) had a “SJ” temperament, 34 (25.8%) had a “NF”
temperament, 12 (9.1%) had a “SP” temperament, and two (1.5%) had a “NT temperament (see
Figure 3).
Looking at the more specific personality groups, it was found that only 12 of the 16
personality types were represented among respondents. Of the 132 respondents, 51 (38.6%) had
an ESFJ personality type, 17 (12.9%) had an ESTJ personality type, 12 (9.1%) had an ENFJ
personality type, 11 (8.3%) had an ENFP personality type, 10 (7.6%) had an ISFJ personality
type, eight (6.1%) had either an ESFP or INFJ personality type, six (4.5%) had an ISTJ
personality type, three (2.3%) had an INFP personality type, and two (1.5%) had either an ESTP,
ISFP, or ENTJ personality type (see Figure 4).
Figure 3
84
34
12 2
Temperament
SJ
NF
SP
NT
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 18
Figure 4
Measures of central tendency and dispersion were computed to summarize the length of
time the participant had been an ambassador. Of 132 ambassadors, the average amount of time
they had worked was 1.92 years; N=132, M=1.92, SD=1.03.
Measures of central tendency and dispersion were also computed to summarize the
performance ratings for all categories including the overall performance rating. Results for
overall performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.73, SD=.1.94. Results for interpersonal
communication performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=8.12, SD=.1.62. Results for work
ethic performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=8.01, SD=.1.98. Results for self-motivation
performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.81, SD=.2.20. Results for commitment to the
program performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.94, SD=1.91.
2 8
2
17
6
51
10
12
8
11
3 2
Personality
ESTP
ESFP
ISFP
ESTJ
ISTJ
ESFJ
ISFJ
ENFJ
INFJ
ENFP
INFP
ENTJ
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 19
One purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the number of
temperaments or personality types among admission ambassadors.
First, the four temperaments were examined: SP, SJ, NF, and NT. A one-variable Chi
square test was run (χ2(3) = 121.33, p .05].
Likewise, there was no statistical difference in the interpersonal communication performance
rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .06, p>.05], the work ethic performance
AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 20
rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .50, p>.05], the self-motivation
performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .72, p>.05], or the
commitment to the program performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)=
.24, p>.05] (See Appendix 2).
There was also a one-way between subjects ANOVA conducted to compare each of the
12 personality types with the performance-rating categories. Similar to the four temperament
groups, there was no statistical difference in the overall performance rating between each
personality type [F(3, 128)= .14, p>.05], the work ethic performance rating between each
personality type [F(3, 128)= .09, p>.05], the self-motivation performance rating between each
personality type [F(3, 128)= .14, p>.05], or the commitment to the program performance rating
between each personality type [F(3, 128)= .18, p.05] (See Appendix 2).
In order to determine exactly where the difference exists, post hoc comparisons using the
Tukey HSD were used. These comparisons indicated the mean rating for ISFP personality type
(M = 4.50, SD = 3.53) was significantly different than ESTJ personality type (M = 8.71, SD =
1.72), ESFJ personality type (M = 8.43, SD = 1.25), and ENFJ personality type (M = 8.58, SD =
1.24).
Finally, a one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the overall
performance ratings from each of the schools. There was a significant difference between the
scores at the five different institutions [F(4, 127)= .00, p